Iv currently got an AMD ethlon 2400+ and it works for me, I havent ever used pentium.
which is better
Printable View
Iv currently got an AMD ethlon 2400+ and it works for me, I havent ever used pentium.
which is better
AMD, no questtion.
Better for what/whom?
A 2400+ will suit you fine for today's apps.
Neither is better or worse, both of them have their plusses and their minuses.
Of course, the major plus for AMD is incidentally the major minus for Intel; namely that your $200 gets an AMD that pisses all over a $200 Intel.Quote:
Originally posted by orcutt989@6 July 2004 - 17:17
Neither is better or worse, both of them have their plusses and their minuses.
Of course, the major plus for AMD is incidentally the major minus for Intel; namely that your $200 gets an AMD that pisses all over a $200 Intel. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Chewie UK+6 July 2004 - 23:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chewie UK @ 6 July 2004 - 23:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-orcutt989@6 July 2004 - 17:17
Neither is better or worse, both of them have their plusses and their minuses.
:)
Of course, the major plus for AMD is incidentally the major minus for Intel; namely that your $200 gets an AMD that pisses all over a $200 Intel. [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Chewie UK+6 July 2004 - 23:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chewie UK @ 6 July 2004 - 23:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-orcutt989@6 July 2004 - 17:17
Neither is better or worse, both of them have their plusses and their minuses.
;)
Being minimally biased here, Intel understandably dominates the consumer processor market (in all probability, the enterprise sector, too), notably due to their reputation in supplying consumers with processors that are renoun for defeating their counterparts, namely AMD and their false naming schemes. For instance, AMD's recent Athlon 64 product range was christened the 2800+, 3000+, 3200+, 3400+ and then the ... 3700+?
On what basis was it given this name? Was it an effort to, perhaps, by AMD, to baffle the common processor purchaser – who is probable to be considerably computer-illiterate, but simultaneously populates the vast majority of the consumer processor market. From AMD's perspective, the answer is no; they persist in thinking negatively in that the 3700+'s performance is to be comparable to that of an Intel Pentium 4 ~3.6GHz – which is highly doubtful.
This example accounts for just one of the numerous marketing errors that AMD is guilty of comitting – allowing Intel to grasp the lead, with ease.
Actually, I recently read in the business section of the newspaper that Intel has been steadily losing marketshare to AMD.Quote:
Originally posted by Amarjit@7 July 2004 - 09:47
This example accounts for just one of the numerous marketing errors that AMD is guilty of comitting – allowing Intel to grasp the lead, with ease.
Granted, they still are the biggest player, but AMD must be doing something right.
its the cost. B)Quote:
Originally posted by clocker@7 July 2004 - 13:24
AMD must be doing something right.
AMD knew exactly what they were doing.Quote:
Originally posted by Amarjit@7 July 2004 - 16:47
Being minimally biased here, Intel understandably dominates the consumer processor market (in all probability, the enterprise sector, too), notably due to their reputation in supplying consumers with processors that are renoun for defeating their counterparts, namely AMD and their false naming schemes. For instance, AMD's recent Athlon 64 product range was christened the 2800+, 3000+, 3200+, 3400+ and then the ... 3700+?
On what basis was it given this name? Was it an effort to, perhaps, by AMD, to baffle the common processor purchaser – who is probable to be considerably computer-illiterate, but simultaneously populates the vast majority of the consumer processor market. From AMD's perspective, the answer is no; they persist in thinking negatively in that the 3700+'s performance is to be comparable to that of an Intel Pentium 4 ~3.6GHz – which is highly doubtful.
This example accounts for just one of the numerous marketing errors that AMD is guilty of comitting – allowing Intel to grasp the lead, with ease.
Intel have had a vice-like grip on consumers' minds all through the x86 line, and have been using this weight advantage to push speed=power thinking. This has been prevalent even through their MMX and Hyoer-Threading pushes, and even though the informed have known this thinking to be folly, many in the publishing industry have just blindly followed Intel guidance.
When AMD announced the PR rating, putting into the part number what the original Athlon had been doing for a while and explaining it to the public, people suddenly started thinking about it, and that thinking has been growing at an extent that has obviously worried Intel. It's worried them enough to seriously consider not using speed ratings at all in their chips.
Intel are starting to talk about actual work done, not clock speed, being indicative of a CPU's power.
Mac owners have been talking this way for a long time, by the way.
We should call processer's letters so there's no confusion like the amd athlon 64 aba. abb. abc. abd etc.
is Athlon XP any different when installing then a Pentium 4?
Nah pretty much same..just diff pins and everything..but process is the same.
same thing prety much, heatsink goes on a bit differently though...on an athlonxp you just push down the little clip and it hooks onto the socket.Quote:
Originally posted by XxKrNxStyLeZxX@7 July 2004 - 23:01
is Athlon XP any different when installing then a Pentium 4?
On a P4 the heatsink has two levers, you hook them onto a brace attached to teh boards, then pull them opposite way form eachother, and it puts pressure (evenly) onto the processor.
The way I look at it is...if you have plenty of money, then get the top of the line intel or amd..
What do both CPUs do for us? They let us complete our work and have lots of fun! I love both Intel and AMD